Console EQ has more effect...

[FirstLoveStudio]

I don't want an argument plugin vs. desk EQ but have discovered something in my mixing which might be interesting...

I mix mainly in the box - i.e. that where most of the work is done - mainly UAD stuff - run through my big old Sapphyre console. Essentially, used as a summing mixer - I keep faders flat(ish) so I can recall projects easily and work on many projects during a day...

Recently I've noticed that getting toward the end of a mix, if I decide I need a little more of 'something' say, click on kick, air on cymbals, chest to bass - that sometimes, I just can't get that stuff through the mix with the UAD eqs that I've set the mix up with, yet using a tiny amount of EQ at the desk - has a massive impact.

It FEELs like headroom - its like the digital domain is full up, and suddenly I've got all this space above the mix that I can push into (analogue domain).

Turns out, its the same with levels - tiniest nudge on an analogue fader has profoundly more impact than much bigger chenges in the virtual mixer.

Moreso - its beeter on the desk! I know the EQs aren't the sweetest on my Soundcraft, but they just 'DO' more...

This whole approach is new to me, so thought some other opinions on hybrid mixing for folk that don't have enough outboard to build a whole mix OTB or simply need the workflow of ITB could be interesting...

Anyone?

[Everbeatz]

did you try serial eqing ITB?

[Karloff70]

Echoes my experience entirely, only I had it the other way round, where being used to an analog desk first the plugs just never quite did the same thing. They are good now, but they still don't do the same thing. And your example of that 'tiny something nudge' to make the thing slot is a perfect one.

[dibravibra]

nothing new for me!!

[Showcase]

I can just agree, you hear the changes taking place ITB when eq a soloed track, but it doesnt take any place in the mix like a better console!
Im usually just using ITB eq when cutting with extreme narrow Q`s cause there are plugins that works better than my console for this kind of tasks imo!

[johnnygri]

Same here. I've moved from ITB to a hybrid setup. No looking back, its just marvellous. Quite a lot to learn and it hasn't been cheap but my mixes are sounding better and better. Plus, I find it *so* much more enjoyable. Some of my gear the snobs will turn their noses up (including a rebuilt Tascam 38 and Lee Scratch Perry's modded Soundcraft 200 desk) but I am happy as a pig in poo. My biggest eye-opener was outboard EQ, which is currently smashing all ITB EQ plugins I've tried (apart from Nebula, which is utterly, utterly fantastic).

[theblue1]

Is this thread really about potential lack of calibration in plugins and hardware? Is this news?

People find all this supposed mojo in everyday, real world inconsistencies. They crack me up. But not really in a good way. It demonstrates such a profound misunderstanding of how everyday technologies work.

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by theblue1

Is this thread really about potential lack of calibration in plugins and hardware?

No.

[theblue1]

OK.

[FirstLoveStudio]

Originally Posted by theblue1

Is this thread really about potential lack of calibration in plugins and hardware? Is this news?

People find all this supposed mojo in everyday, real world inconsistencies. They crack me up. But not really in a good way. It demonstrates such a profound misunderstanding of how everyday technologies work.

Can I just apologise on behalf of all the other engineers on this thread about cracking you up in a bad way with our profound misunderstandings.

I LITERALLY posted this to check whether I was misunderstanding anything with people who have (i always assume) more experience than me.

What you said is interesting - I will take some measurements...

What desks do you work on BTW?

[rogerbrain]

qualified yep..I have a sony MPX 390 that I can send to.. it is definately different than an in the box mix.. and it changes the way my other outboard gear 'acts' ( a little) when I mix I do an in the box mix and print it then send it thru the Sony ..the way the eq effects sounds in the sony is different and 'less seems to do more' thru the mixer (if that makes sense)

it is all wired and only takes a few min to do a second mix to 'compare' ..
on the last project 3 out of 8 mixes the sony won.. 5 our of 8 the ITB mix was more what I was after...

on a qualification to the 3 to 5 itb win.. I do some further processing and often like to leave things 'less big' sounding to give the final comp/limit a bit more to do ..

but yeah to what you said

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by FirstLoveStudio

Can I just apologise on behalf of all the other engineers on this thread about cracking you up in a bad way with our profound misunderstandings.

I LITERALLY posted this to check whether I was misunderstanding anything with people who have (i always assume) more experience than me.

What you said is interesting - I will take some measurements...

What desks do you work on BTW?

Perhaps I should apologize for grumpiness.

I guess the point of my post was that between the ideal and the real there is an inevitable gap. But there is also typically a gap between the real and the perception. Add those together and there is a whole lot of wobble room.

I sometimes find myself vexed over people in these forums drawing all these often wildly creative inferences from their own or others' perceived experiences.

On one hand, it's entirely understandable that people with little scientific or technical background would struggle to make sense of concepts for which they have little preparation to understand. On the other, it's vexing that so few actually go out of their way to gain a proper understanding of the technical fundamentals underlying practice in our peculiar blend of art and technology.

[dubrichie]

Originally Posted by theblue1

On one hand, it's entirely understandable that people with little scientific or technical background would struggle to make sense of concepts for which they have little preparation to understand. On the other, it's vexing that so few actually go out of their way to gain a proper understanding of the technical fundamentals underlying practice in our peculiar blend of art and technology.

Can I get a witness?!

Preach brother, PREACH!

[FirstLoveStudio]

Thanks for the apology. I understand the frustration.

So your saying you have taken measurements of 3dB change on a console and compared it to a 3dB change in software and discovered that the former has greater effect on the SPL coming out of the speakers?

That must be true for my setup.

I think its about headroom...

[James Lugo]

Same here. It seems like everything eq or compressor wise is more dramatic and actually works with smaller moves then plugs. It seems across the board no pun intended. Lol.

[DrFrankencopter]

I suspect much of this feeling comes from the GUI's on plug-ins.

With analog EQ, you tend to just reach for the knobs, and twist away until it sounds right. Often times you end up with some pretty big cuts/boosts, but they were arrived at by using your ears almost exclusively.

With plug-ins its different, you tend to look at the control and often the graph while adjusting it. This may result in less aggressive EQ'ing as you second guess yourself based on what you're seeing as opposed to what you're hearing.

I find it much easier to get good settings with a control surface than a mouse. It lets me focus on the sound I'm going for instead of managing the GUI interface.

Anyone on this thread try Waves Q-Clone? It's a pretty cool way to use your hardware as a plug-in control surface.

Cheers

Kris

[daez]

I agree with the op. I can push my analog goodies at levels that far exceed where my daws d/a gets crapped out without it sounding well crapped out. I think the converters make a huge difference being that they are what your daw will sound like. I often don't use my analog in a mix because I don't have enough of it to go around, and often it will make the elements I try to use it on just stand out too much in a good way to where the rest just doesn't sound as good and being it has to all sit as a cohesive image I'll use my plugs for the most part.

[johnnygri]

Originally Posted by theblue1

I sometimes find myself vexed over people in these forums drawing all these often wildly creative inferences from their own or others' perceived experiences.

On one hand, it's entirely understandable that people with little scientific or technical background would struggle to make sense of concepts for which they have little preparation to understand. On the other, it's vexing that so few actually go out of their way to gain a proper understanding of the technical fundamentals underlying practice in our peculiar blend of art and technology.

I say my good man - is any of that coming my way?

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by FirstLoveStudio

Thanks for the apology. I understand the frustration.

So your saying you have taken measurements of 3dB change on a console and compared it to a 3dB change in software and discovered that the former has greater effect on the SPL coming out of the speakers?

That must be true for my setup.

I think its about headroom...

Not sure whom you're addressing, but it's not that I've carefully compared incremental EQ changes between hardware and soft, nor would I be likely to because, based on decades of experience with hardware, I don't expect all implementations to have the same precision.

While it's safe to say that an EQ that doesn't implement the changes it says it's implementing (e.g., a 5 dB boost centered at 2 kHz with a 1.5 Q should be precisely that) is 'broken' to the extent it delivers different results, in the real world of hardware, experienced folks expect variation, from board to board and even from channel to channel. At the higher end, we expect much less variation, of course, but in the world of physical components, each device will vary to some, perhaps quite small, perhaps not so small, extent. What I was whining about was the tendency for some to try to read too much into those real world variations.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by johnnygri

I say my good man - is any of that coming my way?

Let's say that maybe we can all share that mantle to some extent. It's definitely not my intent here to single anyone out nor was I thinking of any particular response in this thread or elsewhere, but rather a tendency I see for many of us. (I can be snarky and mean-spirited, but it's not my intent here. )

[FirstLoveStudio]

Originally Posted by theblue1

Not sure whom you're addressing, but it's not that I've carefully compared incremental EQ changes between hardware and soft, nor would I be likely to because, based on decades of experience with hardware, I don't expect all implementations to have the same precision.

While it's safe to say that an EQ that doesn't implement the changes it says it's implementing (e.g., a 5 dB boost centered at 2 kHz with a 1.5 Q should be precisely that) is 'broken' to the extent it delivers different results, in the real world of hardware, experienced folks expect variation, from board to board and even from channel to channel. At the higher end, we expect much less variation, of course, but in the world of physical components, each device will vary to some, perhaps quite small, perhaps not so small, extent. What I was whining about was the tendency for some to try to read too much into those real world variations.

I 100% agree - of course. So if you're not talking about variation, what were you referring to in your first post? Is the misunderstanding too great to explain? I'm quite brainy you know, and here to learn

[ionian]

What I've found between hardware and plug EQs is that when boosting with plug EQs I don't always get that hit in the chest or the air I get from hardware.

Boosting the low on hardware hits me in the chest. Boosting highs on hardware sounds like there's air mixed in with the sizzle.

With plugs I feel like boosting the low or the high, it just ends up sounding like the low or high got louder.

I can sculpt a kick with a plug and hardware and in the end they will both have a similar sound, but with the hardware it'll also have a thump to it that I have a hard time making happen with a plug.

Anyway, that's been my experience.

Regards,
Frank

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by FirstLoveStudio

I 100% agree - of course. So if you're not talking about variation, what were you referring to in your first post? Is the misunderstanding too great to explain? I'm quite brainy you know, and here to learn

Actually, my first (rather grumpy) post in this thread was more about the tendency for many of us to infer great meaning from relatively small, perceived differences in various phenomena.

[johnnygri]

Originally Posted by theblue1

Let's say that maybe we can all share that mantle to some extent. It's definitely not my intent here to single anyone out nor was I thinking of any particular response in this thread or elsewhere, but rather a tendency I see for many of us. (I can be snarky and mean-spirited, but it's not my intent here. )

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by theblue1

Actually, my first (rather grumpy) post in this thread was more about the tendency for many of us to infer great meaning from relatively small, perceived differences in various phenomena.

Well, my tendency to infer great meaning from the relatively small differences that my hardware eq causes to a signal that the plugs do not may be a phenomena to some, but just equates to reality for me. I don't need to get scientific about it. I just need to make use of it. Sometimes understanding how or why something works actually doesn't help you use it. I just want to use it because I perceive it to sound better. Look up Bert Hellinger and family constellations. No one, including him (who came up with the method) can explain why or how it works. So the science mad attacked him....you can't explain how or why it works..!!! You're a fake/unscientific, etc....he just said" I don't care why it works. It works, so I use it".

[Davido]

Originally Posted by theblue1

Is this thread really about potential lack of calibration in plugins and hardware? Is this news?

People find all this supposed mojo in everyday, real world inconsistencies. They crack me up. But not really in a good way. It demonstrates such a profound misunderstanding of how everyday technologies work.

Or maybe its just someone at the beginning of their recording journey that has discovered a new way to work, and is excited about.

Maybe there are loads of people out there just starting out, that will read this and learn.

What cracks me up is people who have enough time on their hands to go through threads they obviously have no interest in, to have a go at someone.

Take the microphone out of your a*se.